This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

[/B]
Well its simple - the order of succession would be followed. I mean we are talking about politicians - just how far down the line of succession do you think we'd have to go before we find someone left behind? My bet - not far at all

HAH! too late! by the new rules you've already made a gaffe, making you an utter moron and completely invalidating anything else you say afterwards!!!

But I admitted my error.

I think you are putting too high a bar on "tirelessly", then; many of the founders did indeed work to end slavery until the end of their public (or actual) lives. Franklin for example.

Most of the founders backed away from addressing slavery, either publicly or privately. The did so for political reasons... they needed the south to commit to supporting the Revolution and the Constitution.

Certainly Bachmann was correct in that she corrected the narrative that the founders were either ambivalent towards or in favor of slavery.

No. Everything that Bachman said was referencing JQ Adams. I've read a bit about JQ and what she said was about him, NOT about the founders. She just go it wrong around him not being a founder.

i think it is relevant in discussing those who attack Bachmann on this sort of issue.

I don't.

generally, no, i don't think this stuff is relevant. I've said it about people from both sides - you don't generally climb this high in a competitive field unless you are above average smarts. some later deteriorate (joe biden, i think, has done so), but you don't get up there unless you're on the ball. People who get Sarah Palin confused with Tina Fey are the fools, not she.

I agree... I don't think that getting some of these historical details correct, off the cuff, is really that important in assessing a candidate.

This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.

Originally Posted by Wessexman

See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.

Originally Posted by ernst barkmann

It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

A lot of these GOP guys never want to admit their wrong. During that CNN debate Romney was asked "You said earlier in this op ed that the bailout will cause the complete failure of the american auto industry, it seems now they are doing better than ever since the bailout, do you believe that was incorrect"? And he's like "No i stand by that" <<< What????

not really. had Bachman done this (or had she congradulated the Mexican Ambassador on celebrating "Cinco de Quatro") as the President did, the echo-chambers here would be hopping all over her, having heard it in Breaking News on MSNBC.

Most of the founders backed away from addressing slavery, either publicly or privately. The did so for political reasons... they needed the south to commit to supporting the Revolution and the Constitution.

publicly they came to the uneasy truce on the issue. Jefferson's original language in the Declaration was actually partially scrubbed for precisely this reason. However, you are incorrect to characterize them so - they openly addressed the issue when they banned slavery on federal lands, and they privately did so when they joined (for example, as Benjamin Franklin did) manumission and/or abolition societies.

No. Everything that Bachman said was referencing JQ Adams. I've read a bit about JQ and what she said was about him, NOT about the founders. She just go it wrong around him not being a founder.

Bachmann threw out JQ as an example of a larger group that she was discussing. She was right about the group, and off about JQ. I can see why she lumped him in in that group, though I agree a stronger case could be made against doing so than in favor of it.

I don't.

then you need to jive that with:

I agree... I don't think that getting some of these historical details correct, off the cuff, is really that important in assessing a candidate.

A lot of these GOP guys never want to admit their wrong. During that CNN debate Romney was asked "You said earlier in this op ed that the bailout will cause the complete failure of the american auto industry, it seems now they are doing better than ever since the bailout, do you believe that was incorrect"? And he's like "No i stand by that" <<< What????

and explained himself. when do you see Obama admitting that the Stimulus was a flop, or that Obamacare is going to raise the deficit and the cost of healthcare?